On this episode of The Bespoke Parenting Podcast, host Julie Gunlock talks to Trista Hamsmith and Melissa Fensterstock about the dangers of button batteries. Trista is the founder of Reese’s Purpose, a non-profit named for Trista’s 18-month-old daughter who died after accidentally swallowing a button battery. Melissa is the CEO of Landsdowne Labs, which is currently developing a safer button battery.
TRANSCRIPT
Julie Gunlock:
Hey, everyone. I’m Julie Gunlock, the host of the Bespoke Parenting Hour. For those new to the program, this podcast is focused on how parents should custom tailor their parenting style to fit what’s best for themselves, their families, and most importantly, their kids. Today, I’m going to be talking to Trista Hamsmith. She is the founder of a very important organization called Reese’s Purpose. It’s a nonprofit that works to correct safety issues impacting children and their families. I’m also joined by Melissa Fensterstock. I’m sorry, I always slip on that. Fensterstock, the CEO of Landsdowne Labs, a company developing innovative products to improve child safety. Obviously, this is a conversation about child safety and a very important issue. Trista, I wanted to start with you and your daughter, Reese. If you could tell us Reese’s story and as you wonderfully named the organization that’s named after her, her purpose.
Trista Hamsmith:
Yes. Thank you for having us today. It was in October of 2020 that Reese woke up just snotty, stuffy, not her usual self. Our pediatrician has a weekend clinic, so we went ahead and popped over there. She’s diagnosed with croup. Croup is a common misdiagnosis for button battery ingestion. She got a steroid shot and we were sent home. It was the following day we realized there was a button battery missing in our home. We went straight to the ER where they-
Julie Gunlock:
If I can just interrupt you real quick.
Trista Hamsmith:
Yeah.
Julie Gunlock:
Just these button batteries, these are the flat little ones. They’re really small and they have various sizes, their circumference.
Trista Hamsmith:
Right.
Julie Gunlock:
But just want to be clear with anyone who isn’t aware. I wasn’t really aware of this issue that much either until I read Reese’s story. So again, I just wanted to make that clear, very small. Okay.
Trista Hamsmith:
Yes, very small. The larger size button batteries can actually get lodged in the esophagus and so that’s what happened with Reese. She had ingested that battery. We know it came from a remote, but we think that she dropped it on the floor and it busted open. They confirmed that it was in there. We had emergency surgery, spent a few days in ICU, came home for a couple of days, and before the weekend, I wanted eyes on her again. So we went back and that’s where we learned that even after these batteries are removed, they can continue to burn for days. In her case, it burned a hole through her esophagus and through her trachea, creating a fistula that connected the two. So we had air going where it didn’t need to go, and we had food going where it didn’t need to go.
So from there, we did another surgery. I gave her a G-button so that we could administer food straight to her stomach and she came back sedated. At that point, we were to wait for inflammation to go down and just come up with a plan. A few days later, she coded and our little town of Lubbock, Texas decided that we needed to go to a larger hospital where we went to Houston and spent the rest of our time with her. Once there, we got the whole team together and came up with a game plan to repair that hole and get her back to where she could be. She went through countless procedures, countless scopes, a 13-hour surgery. Everything went well. We got it repaired and then it was just waiting to have a little bit of healing to take place. Then we wanted to get her back breathing on her own again.
One night, I’d stepped away for dinner and I got back and I heard them say, “Administering CPR” the second I turned the corner. She was gone eight minutes that time, but we did get her back in the consensus that she just wasn’t strong enough. So we ultimately put in a trach. The morning after we put the trach in, the numbers just weren’t looking right, so they wanted to do a bedside scope. I was there and quickly after it started, the beeping started and the numbers were dropping and she was gone 30 minutes, 35 minutes before they came to me and said, “If we get her back after this, we don’t know what kind of life she will have because it had been so long.” Ultimately, it just wasn’t the plan for her to be with us.
When we were at Texas Children’s, I had put up a Christmas tree in her room. I wanted her to wake up to the sparkly lights and the magic of Christmas that we remember as children. Underneath that tree was a little plaque that said, “He has a plan and I have a purpose.” So I always knew that we were meant to do something about this. We were meant to educate. We were meant just to get the word out because we didn’t know. We had no idea that the batteries could do this. And of course, I imagined it with Reese by my side, but that’s not how it turned out, but we decided that her purpose still exists. After that happened, we decided to get out and educate people and move forward. We created Reese’s Purpose, which is our nonprofit that through that nonprofit, we help families that are in the same situation. We purchase headstones. We help with flights to get to the doctors that they need to get to. Anything that families need, we really try to be there for and help support.
We also help to advocate for the other solutions to the problem, which an early detection device is one of those. A safer battery is one of those. There’s so many different things and areas that we can really touch on to help this problem until we do have a permanent solution one day.
Julie Gunlock:
This is hard to listen to. I can see all of us a little emotional here. She was 18 months old. Is that right?
Trista Hamsmith:
Mm-hmm, when she passed away. She was 16 months when she ingested the battery.
Julie Gunlock:
Wow, okay. This was really a long battle and unfortunately, she passed away, which is just horrifying. But let’s talk about these batteries. I think this might be a good time to talk to you, Melissa, about your labs and what you are actually doing to innovate, to create. I guess this is my first question. Why are these batteries used?
Melissa Fensterstock:
You mean in comparison to a AA or a AAA? Yeah.
Julie Gunlock:
Yes. Some of it is self-explanatory because these are teeny things that need teeny batteries, but I guess I’ve seen these batteries used in things that aren’t that small that could probably take another battery. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it is simply a size thing.
Melissa Fensterstock:
Yeah, it’s generally a size and power issue. The proliferation of the use of these batteries has been driven mostly by IoT and sensors and small products. I’d say most of the devices that use them, it’s really a design requirement because they all are small and have high power needs. So they are generally three-volt batteries, sometimes one and a half volt batteries. So they’re higher power and in things like glucose monitoring systems, something like medical devices where you really need a reliable source of power and you can’t afford to have them drain. That’s often where these batteries are used. So sure, there might be some situations where they’re larger, but generally, it’s driven by smaller devices that have high-power needs.
Julie Gunlock:
Now, do you all want these to be removed entirely from the marketplace? You want better designs? What is your policy goal? What are you asking? I know that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is part of this. I know you want warning labels, but I’m also interested if you want these taken off the market.
Melissa Fensterstock:
Trista, you go first.
Trista Hamsmith:
Yeah. In an ideal world, that would be perfect. We passed Reese’s Law this last September, which requires any product containing a battery to be in a secure compartment, stronger warning labels, and as well as replacement batteries that you’re going to buy at the store for those to be in childproof packaging. Of course, when we started working on legislation, I was like, is this even possible? Unfortunately, we can’t just take button batteries away. I think me and many other parents wish we could, but that’s just not a feasible option, which is why it’s important that we do find a safer battery.
Julie Gunlock:
And Melissa, I don’t want to cut you off if you want to add on to that. I’m going in a different direction. We can come back.
Melissa Fensterstock:
Sure.
Julie Gunlock:
… to this. But I do want to also address, truly, I read a lot about the story and I was amazed that you actually had to… It’s just awful, but people were like, “Well, you have to be more vigilant. You should have seen it. It’s your fault.” They may not have been that cruel. I think they probably were, but I cannot stand… Part of the reason that I started this podcast, and it’s called Bespoke, is to try to take a little of the judginess out and try to get people to accept that people parent in different ways and you parent the way that’s best for you, whether that’s breastfeeding or bottle feeding. You get it. We all get this, right?
Melissa Fensterstock:
Right.
Julie Gunlock:
But that narrative. I saw you talk about this once about how quickly it can happen, how tiny these things are and how if there’s not a screw securing this battery in, kids play with things and this was a remote control, correct?
Trista Hamsmith:
Yes. The first part, yes, people are horrible. We heard a lot of different pushback on the topic. You have to have thick skin to go into something like this. I even had a fellow survivor mom or survivor of button batteries. Her child passed away. That was just awful. I think on a topic like this where emotions are so high, people do get mean. What I like to say to those people is that you do have no idea how quickly it can happen. When we realized the battery was missing, I was thinking the dogs. I didn’t think in any way a child would eat a piece of metal. I told my husband. I said, “Hey.” I said, “Go get a button battery.” He got one and we dropped it on the floor next to her just to see if she’d even try and pick it up.
Julie Gunlock:
Shiny, sparkly thing.
Trista Hamsmith:
Yes. It’s that quick. You turn to stir the soup and it’s gone. It’s done. Obviously, we did not let her get that battery to her mouth,-
Julie Gunlock:
Of course.
Trista Hamsmith:
… but that just goes to show-
Julie Gunlock:
Kids
Trista Hamsmith:
I want any parent out there to tell me that they watch their child every single second. Do you all not have to go tinkle? Do you all not have other things that need to be done?
Julie Gunlock:
Right.
Trista Hamsmith:
It was really ridiculous the things that people said. The scary part is the people who make those comments are the ones most at risk because they have the it won’t happen to me mentality and that’s exactly who it’s going to happen to.
Julie Gunlock:
So you take this awful situation and you’ve turned it into this organization. Yeah, I feel like I’ve been a little backwards in this. My order of questions is a little off because it is so hard to hear that story and to hear also just what you went through personally and your family. I’m sorry to back up here, but tell me how you and Melissa found each other and started working together.
Trista Hamsmith:
Yeah. After we got back from Houston and had the funeral, I had multiple people reach out. It’s a topic that obviously I didn’t know was such a problem, but there are people out there that do know. Melissa and I ended up speaking because they are working on a safer battery technology and it’s a phenomenal technology. Melissa and I have really been talking and bouncing ideas off of each other since right after Reese passed away.
Julie Gunlock:
Melissa, tell me a little bit about your labs, Landsdowne Labs, it’s history. I know it’s related to MIT and your co-founder is quite famous. Tell us a little bit about your labs and I’d love to hear about the battery technology as well.
Melissa Fensterstock:
Absolutely. Absolutely. Just to bring it full circle, actually one of my co-founders at Landsdowne had seen one of Trista’s posts when Reese was in the hospital. So that’s how at least I was made aware of what was going on and then we connected shortly thereafter. It was Facebook that initially had brought us to together. In terms of the history of the lab, so we’ve been working on this problem for well over a decade. Initially, I want to say it was in the early 2010s, one of Bob Langer’s postdocs read an article in the New York Times about this being a problem and said to himself, “This is modern times. This is not a problem that should go unsolved. Let me spend some of my postdoc work at MIT working on solving the problem.” So it was in that timeframe that Bryan Laulicht, my co-founder, had identified some early versions of the technology.
Initially, it was a very different design, but his wheels were turning even back then. Bob Langer, for those of you who don’t know, is a very prolific inventor at MIT. He’s one of the most successful high-profile inventors at MIT and is these days, known for being the co-founder of Moderna. Back in 2017 when I joined Landsdowne Labs, Moderna was at a very different place in history, but now, he’s a household name for that. But Bob is a wonderful, genius entrepreneur who cares very deeply about this problem and supported the work. From somewhere between 2012 to 2017, the technology was still in an academic setting and then we spun the technology out. In 2017, I joined the helm, raised capital to get the business going.
Fast-forward to today, I’m happy to bring you to where we are today, but over the course of the number of years, we’ve really gone through many versions and iterations of the technology that really are meant to meet the needs that are in the marketplace, meet the needs of other battery manufacturers and brands to get it to a point where it’s commercially ready. So that’s essentially where we are today and I’m happy to answer more questions about that.
Julie Gunlock:
Yeah, that’s exciting. Industry must also be very interested in this. They don’t want this to happen. Remote control makers are not like, “Oh, who cares?” They want to make their product safe as well. I’m sure there was an eagerness for a new battery or maybe not. I get it. Also, costs are involved, that your battery might be more expensive. So break that down for me a little bit.
Melissa Fensterstock:
Yes. I’ll answer this first and then I’ll let Trista give her opinion as well. I think it’d be helpful to get both perspectives. This is my personal experience and perspective is that while this is a problem, it happens. The liability currently doesn’t sit with the battery companies. Their opinion in a court of law would be the product was misused. The parent wasn’t watching their child.
Julie Gunlock:
Of course.
Melissa Fensterstock:
There’s not a really compelling legal argument at this point in time that squarely puts that liability with battery manufacturers. It’s often the medical professionals that are sued for medical malpractice, for failure to diagnose.
Julie Gunlock:
Oh, not detecting it.
Melissa Fensterstock:
Yeah. My perspective is like they’re not feeling the pain enough from my liability perspective.
Julie Gunlock:
Interesting.
Melissa Fensterstock:
I’m sure they settle and they’re undisclosed amounts and it’s very difficult to find out the details. I’m sure that happens and it does happen, but it’s not a front and center issue for them. So taking that into account, the question is, well, how much should they really spend? If I’m a CEO of a major battery brand, yes, it’s a liability, but it’s not a huge pain for me. I think there’s definitely a public perception and PR problem that they could face and I think a lot of Trista’s amazing work is bringing that more front and center. So then it comes down to we have this cash cow. These businesses are essentially cash cows. These are mature industries with not a lot of innovation where battery companies are printing billions and billions of dollars without doing anything. So to shake that up is not an easy feat and so there’s this hesitancy, in my opinion again, to adopt innovation that would solve this problem if it costs more.
Julie Gunlock:
Of course.
Melissa Fensterstock:
The question is how much more would a battery company be willing to spend to solve this problem? There’s a general consensus that it’s not much more. So that’s the really difficult part of this equation. It’s like we have a solution that works. It would solve this problem, but it’s going to cost a little bit more. Whether it’s 10 cents or 20 cents or 30 cents, we’re not talking dollars more, but there’s this perspective that it needs to be pennies. I fundamentally disagree with that. You look at other industries. You look at organic baby food. People pay dollars more. You look at BPA-free bottles. If you ask parents, are you willing to spend more money for a safer product? The answer is yes. But because this industry is such a mature industry, not particularly innovative, very cost-sensitive, there’s a huge resistance to adopting anything that adds incremental costs beyond what they think is acceptable.
So that’s where we’re at and why I think legislation is so important and what Trista is working on is so important. We really need to get consumers to say, “This is a problem. You big battery companies need to fix it.” And until they really feel that pressure, I think we’re going to be in this.
Julie Gunlock:
Fascinating.
Melissa Fensterstock:
By the way, Landsdowne Labs has heard consistently from multiple battery companies, “Yes, we’re interested, but we need it cheaper.” Okay. So now we’re going to make a cheaper version, but in my opinion, the big battery companies should be the ones doing this work, not a startup with limited resources.
Julie Gunlock:
Yeah. It’s interesting to me that you are doing this research and that there are the interest. I want to get to you too because I know you’ve probably dealt with these companies too. But are you the innovator? Is there any other development of these safer batteries going on? It sounds like there’s not.
Melissa Fensterstock:
We’re by far the farthest along. Sure, there’s some ideas and some people who are tinkering technology, but there’s so much legwork that goes into battery development, timelines. Yeah, sure, you might have an idea that works, but the really difficult piece is cost, manufacturability, scalability.
Julie Gunlock:
Melissa, I’m thrown. I’m shocked. This is very important then that we… As far as BPA, I spend a lot of time writing about what I consider are false fears. Organic is very well known not to be any better than conventional and BPA, they just put BPS in it. They just replace it with another product that isn’t harmful at those levels. So what frustrates me is that those things get attention. We tell poor mothers to buy expensive baby food, but what we should be talking about are real things like teeny batteries getting lodged in your 18-month-old’s throat. That frustrates me as well. I want to throw to you, Trista, because I know you deal with these companies. What has your experience been? I’m sure you’ve reached out to them and talked to them. What has your experience been?
Trista Hamsmith:
You know what? I have spoken with quite a few different battery companies and probably each one I spoke with along the way, we were at a different point in the process of what Reese’s Purpose is working on. I think for larger companies, the change is hard and business is business, so it does boil down to money, unfortunately. But I think the question is how much money would you put on your child’s life? I think that because of how the Lord did work through all of this and brought so much attention to it, we were really able to leverage Reese and get other parents to start speaking out that we’re almost at a point that we’re forcing battery companies to have to start looking at paying attention and hopefully doing something in the time to come. Business is business and they’re looking at their bottom line. So they have the wild card come out and make a scene, which I guess was me.
I’m interested to see what’s coming in the future and hopefully the changes that we will see made and for companies that start to care about these children that are affected. There’s been Landsdowne Labs and one other battery company that I feel genuinely cares about the solution. Better late to the game than never for some, but I am hopeful that the changes will take place needed as we move forward.
Julie Gunlock:
Well, nobody begrudges the company wanting to make money. That is their job and they’re beholden to their shareholders and they have to look at that, but I do think child safety is really interesting. It’s so interesting. Melissa talks about liability. It’s like they don’t see it really as they’re not the ones paying. Ultimately, they may pay settlements here and there, but ultimately, they don’t pay a large price that would then require them to do a total product redesign. It is interesting though that once these are design toy companies, as I say that, I realize it was a remote control though, so parents have to stay vigilant. While we still work for changes, tell me about Reese’s Law and that’s a good step in the right direction. Tell me what you accomplished with Reese’s Law.
Trista Hamsmith:
Julie Gunlock:
Yes.
Melissa Fensterstock:
Yeah.
Trista Hamsmith:
That’s where I felt like it was important with Reese’s Law that we get all products required to have that secure compartment because they do live here. So that was the first big part of it. I look at it in phases as far as how my foundation is working. The first was the faulty product. The CPSC is working diligently and I’m so impressed with the work they’re putting in. I cannot even begin to start there. But they’re working to help find the right way to close these batteries. We should have an answer to that by the end of August and hopefully sooner. So that part’s important. And then the warning labels. We need something that’s really going to get parents’ attention. Most of us just squeeze past the warning label. It needs to be stronger there. So working on that as well. Then we have lots of battery companies that send batteries in from overseas that just have the flimsy cardboard and if you’re at the dollar store, at children’s eye level. That has to change.
Those are the three big points of Reese’s Law. Past that, like I said, I look at it in steps, and so the second thing that would’ve changed what happened for us was if we would’ve gotten the diagnosis when we were actually at the doctor. That’s where the early detection device is important. Reese’s Purpose is actually funding this device to get it into clinicals.
Julie Gunlock:
That’s so great.
Trista Hamsmith:
We made our official announcement at our golf tournament this last Monday.
Julie Gunlock:
Is this like a scanner? Describe it for me.
Trista Hamsmith:
Well, I am not going to be educated enough to completely explain it, but yes.
Julie Gunlock:
This is just a podcast.
Trista Hamsmith:
I think that would be a proper explanation. If we had caught it at the doctor, that would’ve changed it, but past that, if we had a safer battery, then yes, we still would had to have it removed. We still would have those things. The scanner would’ve helped us find out it was there, but having that safer battery that is deactivated when ingested would’ve prevented the burns from happening.
Julie Gunlock:
Melissa, this is a great time for you to come in and tell me about this new battery. I don’t want you to be uncomfortable and tell things that-
Melissa Fensterstock:
Sure.
Julie Gunlock:
… you’re not, but as much as you can, how is your battery different?
Melissa Fensterstock:
Sure. We’ve modified a component of the battery with a component that would essentially prevent the chemical burns from happening in the first place. When you look at a standard battery, you have an anode and a cathode. It’s basically the plus and minus of the battery. What happens when it’s ingested is that the current is completed with the saliva that allows the current to flow between the anode and the cathode and so you basically get a current and that leads to the burn. What our solution does is it prevents that reaction from taking place. It’s almost as if the battery, it’s like as if you ingested a dime or a nickel.
Julie Gunlock:
That’s brilliant.
Melissa Fensterstock:
Thank you. Yes. It took many years of development and-
Julie Gunlock:
Well, but why it’s so brilliant is it doesn’t rely on the remote control being secured. The safety doesn’t rely on the product having… I know you’re still working for that and that’s great.
Melissa Fensterstock:
No, no. It would be safe in a product. It’d be safer in a product. It’d be-
Julie Gunlock:
Yes.
Melissa Fensterstock:
Right. It doesn’t affect battery performance. I’m sorry, what’s your question?
Julie Gunlock:
No. I’m probably not being clear here. The thing that concerns me is you have this battle. I know that the old batteries will still be used, so we do need secure containers holding the battery.
Melissa Fensterstock:
Absolutely.
Julie Gunlock:
But if there was eventually a total switch, then these batteries, if they do get out… I worry about manufacturers changing their containers to be secure, especially with imports from other countries. You can’t necessarily require those things. So the brilliance of a battery that doesn’t create that current and doesn’t create that burn is wonderful. Of course, you need every manufacturer to adopt these safer batteries, but it’s a brilliant solution. I thought it wasn’t swallowable or something, but this is very exciting.
Melissa Fensterstock:
It is and Trista speaks to this, how you have to attack the problem from multiple angles, safer compartments, safer batteries. It’s everything and so I’m so impressed with what Trista and the CPSC has accomplished with the passage of Reese’s Law. My opinion and belief is that a safer battery, while there may be one altruistic player in the industry that steps ahead and says, “We want to do the right thing,” I’m not betting on that. I’m betting on us needing to say that it’s a regulation and that it’s part of further legislation and that’s the way you’re going to get companies to fall into line. When you look at other industries like climate or other safety products like seat belts, they are mandated by law. I think seat belts are a better example. Auto companies didn’t choose to put necessarily seat belts in. They cost more money and sure, some of the premium car manufacturers may have done that in the early days, but it’s not until the government said, “You have to do this to protect lives,” that it became something that you have to do.
It’s the same thing here and that’s what we’re building towards and that’s what Lansdowne Labs is pushing for, is to get this product far enough out there and into the market soon so that we can go to Senator Blumenthal, who is the champion of Reese’s Law and say, “Hey, we’re ready. Please start mandating this.” Because I don’t have faith in the industry doing it on its own. I just don’t see it happening.
Julie Gunlock:
The Independent Women’s Forum is very critical of most regulations, but we’re not anti-regulation and we certainly don’t believe that it should just be the Wild West, everything, whatever and good luck. It’s we believe in smart regulations and this seems to be one that we would really look at, take a hard look at because of the danger, the risk of death for children and again, because these are so ubiquitous. They are in everything. They’re used in everything. Kids love to play with remotes. My children love to eat remotes. They would chew on anything they could get their hands on. So this is really interesting. I would urge conservatives not to knee-jerk dismiss this. Yes, there are some costs involved, but this to me, again, I’m in the business of looking at an issue and saying, is this really, really risky and we overblowing this? And to me, this is a serious hazard, a serious thing.
I want to, Melissa, just go back to at the very beginning. You were talking about parents will pay for safer items. They will pay. It is amazing to me that no smart marketing guy at a battery company is going, “Let’s do this.” When you look at consumer statistics, it is women that are making most of purchases. From minivans to light bulbs, it’s the women who are making the purchases and the choices. They are the ones selecting the items. My husband can’t even get on the Amazon app. He doesn’t even know how, thank God. But the point is that it really amazes me. Outside of the regulatory space, it amazes me that no one sees an opportunity here.
Melissa Fensterstock:
Well, we have the data. We did sparkling studies. We found that consumers were willing to spend a 30% to 40% premium on a safer product such as ours. The data’s there, and these products at retail are 7.99, 8.99. Duracell launched a better battery. They’re charging a 30% to 40% premium in the retail markets I am seeing, so they obviously see the benefit in retail. So you can charge dollars more. Let’s just say it cost 20 cents more, but you could charge a dollar more, it’s a no-brainer, right? And even passing along the cost to the consumer. The consumer’s willing to pay it. I struggle with the pushback that I’ve gotten from marketing departments in the battery companies. I think where they struggle is more on the OEM side of their business, which is where you’re buying, for example, an AirTag.
Now, by the way, AirTags, the battery literally falls out of it. So anyone on this call, if you had AirTags at home, I’ve used masking tape to seal mine close. They just fall out. So those are horrifying to me. When you’re selling a battery to an Apple or a Sony, they’re looking for the cheapest price possible and they’re paying 10 cents, 15 cents for the battery. So to add substantial cost there does really hurt the bottom line. You’re looking at potentially doubling or tripling the cost of those batteries. So it’s a balance and I get that, but I’m with you. I think the marketing department should be all over this, but at the end of the day, it comes down to dollars and cents.
Julie Gunlock:
Well, certainly, Trista, Reese’s story is a hugely moving story. I love that she is still alive and with us and working on a very important mission. I can’t thank you enough for bringing her story to us and for sharing. You’re incredibly strong to tell your story and to really live it when you are working on this mission. That’s a hard thing to do, so I really appreciate you being with us today.
Trista Hamsmith:
Thank you.
Julie Gunlock:
And Melissa, I will enjoy watching this new product come on the market and I will be a purchaser myself. So thank you for all you’re doing to further Reese’s Purpose as well.
Melissa Fensterstock:
Thank you. Thanks for having us.
Julie Gunlock:
Great. Thank you both. Well, I’m going to get off of this podcast and go for a good cry, but that was a really important topic. I really do encourage everyone listening today, look at products that have those small batteries. If the case is not secure, tape it shut, especially if you have little kids. Thank you for listening today. The Bespoke Parenting Podcast with Julie Gunlock is a production of the Independent Women’s Forum. You can send comments and questions to me at [email protected]. Please help me out by hitting the subscribe button, that really does help, and leaving a comment or review on Apple Podcasts, Acast, Google Play, YouTube, or iwf.org. Hang in their parents and go bespoke.
